The
fact that no impact assessment accompanied the Badman proposals and his belief,
and that of Baroness Morgan, that the costs of implementation would be minimal-
demonstrate how he has failed to appreciate the way home education works at
present and how radically different it would be under his new plans.

§ Implementation of the proposals would result in an estimated minimum
£60-150m pa increase in state education spending; arising primarily from a
requirement that education authorities monitor up to 30,000 home educated
children who are presently not monitored and also step up the light touch
monitoring already in place for the 20,000 children who are currently
registered with LEAs.

§ A secondary cost impact arises from the inevitable increase in the
state education population as the proposals lead to fewer children in home
education (costs currently born by parent) and more in state education (costs
to be born by state).

§ A worse case scenario (but by no means impossible) would see new costs
of over £500m pa if the proposals destabilise a fragile home education
community and lead to a virtual extinction of the home educating population in Britain.

1. Three sources of additional cost

The increase in the state education budget
derives from three sources.

§ Monitoring of home
educated children. Additional local education
officers will be needed to visit, assess and approve the home education of
children. A smaller number of additional education welfare officers will be
needed to support them. LEAs will need additional spending to monitor and
register home educated children, to establish 'consultative forums' and for new
reporting on their home educational efforts to Ofsted and to Child Welfare
Trusts.

§ Support for home education. The proposals suggest LEAs make provision for home educators to
sit exams and use school ICT, sport and other facilities.

§ An increase in the state
education population. The proposals will lead to
fewer children in home education (costs currently born by parent) and more in
state education (costs to be born by state).

2. Three Impact scenarios modelled

§ The first assumes that the Badman proposals have minimal impact. They bring about little
or no change in home education behaviour and lead to only a 10% drop in the
number of home educated children and a consequent 10% rise in the number of
state educated children.

§ The 'central' scenario
assumes the Badman proposals have significant impact. Over time they lead to a
40% drop in the home educated population.

§ The 'extinction' scenario
assumes the proposals collapse the home education community with a 90% drop in
numbers, leaving perhaps just a handful of diehard home educators struggling to
go it alone. This scenario is not as outlandish as might first appear. The home
educating community is small (one might think of it as an already endangered
species). If the population falls further then it becomes more difficult for
parents; to share costs of tutoring, educational visits, social events etc; to
find sufficient numbers of children to make classes and events viable; to find
other home educating parents with whom to exchange lessons and best practice
and from whom to gain emotional support. Home education also becomes more difficult
and less attractive for the child as the population falls; fewer home educated
friends, fewer social and sporting activities, fewer group classes etc.
Negative feedback loops come into play that could rapidly drive the number
towards extinction.

3. Inevitable increase in state educated population

The biggest impact factor will be the rise
in the state-educated population. Three new forces drive a decrease in the home
educated population and therefore an increase in the numbers receiving a state education.

§ Fewer children will leave school to be home educated. Presently the
parent decides whether school is the right educational environment for their
child and the parent is allowed by law to take their child out of school simply
by giving written notice. Under Badman's proposals the school will decide
whether the parent is able to home educate their child. The parent will have to
provide 'a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and
desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months'. The
planned curriculum will have to be 'broad, balanced, relevant and
differentiated'. If the LEA is
satisfied then permission will be granted. This raises the barrier (already
significant) for a parent to overcome when trying to switch from school to home
education. Inevitably some will not be allowed to home educate.

§ More children will be forced to leave home education and go to
school. Presently it is the parent's legal responsibility to provide an
education for their child (through school or otherwise). Under Badman's
proposals this changes. A local education officer would visit all home
educators annually to assess 'attainment and progress' against the previously
approved plan. The inspectors will inevitably fail a certain percentage. This
is human nature. If you are employed to assess, you have to pass some and fail
others. If you don't the conclusion will soon be drawn that either you aren't
doing your job properly or you are doing a job that doesn't need doing.

§ Although some home-educating parents are relaxed about the new
arrangements, the furious response to the proposals suggest a large number are
totally opposed to them. They feel demoralised and disempowered by the transfer
of responsibility for education from parent to state. The extra red tape will
be burdensome and take precious time away from educating the child. The
intrusion of often ill-informed bureaucrats will be upsetting for children and
parents. Inevitably a number of parents will be de-motivated or find their confidence
undermined, others will simply find the change of emphasis and extra burden are
too much to take. Home educators find the job tough enough as it is. For some
Badman's proposals will be one obstacle too many to overcome. Of their own
volition some will give in and send the child to school.

Table1:
Estimated cost impact of Badman proposals

Scenarios:

Minimal
Impact

Central

Extinction

Attrition
rate in home ed population

10%

40%

90%

Initial
number of HE Children (1)

20000

50000

20000

50000

20000

50000

Monitoring

HE
population after attrition

18000

45000

12000

30000

2000

5000

new LEA
officers (2)

90

225

60

150

10

25

additional cost (£m) (3)

23

56

15

38

3

6

new EWO officers (4)

18

45

12

30

2

5

additional cost (£m) (3)

5

11

3

8

1

1

Other additional LEA
costs (£m) (5)

5

13.5

3.6

9.0

0.6

1.5

Total monitoring costs (£m)

32

81

22

54

4

9

Support

Cost to State of HE exams (£m) (6)

1.0

2.5

0.7

1.7

0.1

0.3

Provision of ICT, sport, other (£m) (7)

3.6

9

2.4

6

0.4

1

Total support costs (£m)

4.6

11.5

3.1

7.7

0.5

1.3

Increase in State Education

Rise
in state school population (8)

2000

5000

8000

20000

18000

45000

additional educational cost (£m) (9)

18

45

72

180

162

405

additional EWOs required (10)

8

20

32

80

72

180

additional EWO costs (£m) (3)

2

5

8

20

18

45

number with special needs (11)

200

500

800

2000

1800

4500

additional cost of special needs (£m) (12)

4

10

16

40

36

90

Additional State Education Costs (£m)

24

60

96

240

216

540

Total Additional Cost to State (£m)

61

153

121

302

220

550

Source: All estimates by M Crawshaw July 2009

4. Notes and assumptions.

(1) The number of home educated children is
unknown. The Badman report suggested a possible range of 20,000 to 50,000 children.

(2) Estimated number of additional local
education officers (LEOs) required to cope with the additional duties involved
in new monitoring of those home educated children already visited, and to take on
new monitoring of those children who do not at present receive a visit by an
LEO (both registered and unregistered). The new monitoring proposals are far
more onerous than those in place today. Under the Badman proposals the parent
will have to produce 'a clear statement of their educational approach, intent
and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following twelve months'.
The LEO will have to read this and provide guidance and opportunity to discuss
the approach considering among other things whether the planned curriculum will
be 'broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated'. S/he will then have to
approve or reject each plan. Assuming approval is granted then twelve months later
the LEO will have to visit the child and assess 'attainment and progress'
against the plan. Approval or otherwise will then need to be given again for
the ensuing twelve months. We estimate that each officer recruited to manage
the new home education workload will be able to approve, visit, assess and
report on 200 children per year.

(3) The full costs of each additional LEO
would include direct costs of salary, pension, insurance etc. plus indirect
expenses such as travel, training, IT, secretarial and other administrative
support. An estimated cost of £250k per executive is used. For comparison the Reform
group estimate the average cost of a typical quango runs at £370k pa per person
employed.

(4) Additional Educational Welfare
Officers. There will be greater need for EWOs to become involved when called in
by the LEO to assess a home educated child that would otherwise not have been
assessed. The vast majority (hopefully all) would prove to be false positives
but the extra demand on LEOs would require new appointments. We assume a modest
ratio of one new EWO to cover 1000 children.

(5) Additional administrative overlays will
be required to meet the following new requirements for LEAs: recording and
renewing annually the registration of all home educated children; additional reporting
to Children's Trust by LEA on the
methods used to support home education; establishment of 'Consultative Forums'
for home educating parents; additional reporting to Ofsted of Home Education provision,
number of HE children, numbers of school attendance orders and educations
supervision orders issued; training of 'LEA
reps in safeguarding and in the specifics of Home Education and the use of the
Common Assessment Framework'. We compare this cost to that of a private exam
entrance cost at £120-150 as there are similarities in the administrative burden
in terms of recording, registering and reporting. However, given the number of
bodies involved and the greater complications versus a simple exam paper, we
have estimated the cost at £300 per child per year.

(6) We have assumed the home education population
is spread evenly throughout the school years and so around 8% will be sitting
exam in the final year. We then assume they sit an average of 7 GCSEs (or
equivalents such as BTec) at a cost of £100 per exam. The cost of sitting an
exam privately is between £120 and £150. The average could be reduced by
allowing some HE children to sit in with school exams where the marginal cost may
be as low as £30. However Ed Balls has already accepted that there would be
'difficulties' providing exam access and there are timetabling clashes and other
logistical issues that suggest many home educated children will still have to
sit exams privately with the state picking up the bill. It is not clear whether
the state proposes to (or will eventually be pressured to) pick up the costs of
enrichment courses such as DofE, Arts awards, sports qualifications, music
tuition etc. For now we have assumed the home educating parent will still pay
all these.

(7) This proposal has already met with a
lukewarm response from the Education Secretary. School gyms and ICT and other
equipment are already in full use. As a benchmark the cost for group hire of a
sports hall each week works out at around £100 per individual per year. If the
school was forced to open it up to home educators it would likely be in after-school
hours at a loss of revenue from external hirers of the gym. ICT and other
service provision are difficult to quantify but may be attainable through
overtime payments and other arrangements. Overall we've assumed a cost of £200
per home educated child pa.

(8) We have not allowed for any home
educated children opting for private education as an alternative because this
is rarely the route taken at present. Home education is so different to either
private or state school education that if the parents are forced to send their
child to school they will most likely chose the free option.

(9) Full cost of State Education. In 2008 Daniel
Hannan MEP estimated the full cost of a state education at around £9000 per
child per year. This figure was derived by dividing the state education budget of
£78bn by the number of pupils in state education.

(10) All of those forced back to school or
forced to stay against their wishes to be home educated will be at risk of
truancy and perhaps other behavioural problems arising from the stress of being
forced to school against their and their parents' wishes. We assume just 20% of
these require direct EWO involvement and that each officer can handle 50 cases
per year.

(11) The Home Education Advisory Service
found that 10% of 1700 home educated children with which it had contact had
special needs.

(12) In 2007 the audit commission found
that the average cost of educating a child with complex special needs was £57,150. These complex special needs
children need greater ratios of teachers/helpers than the typical special needs
child educated within a state school. We estimate the cost at half- i.e. £29K.
And so the additional cost on top of the £9k already included would amount to
£20k per special needs child.